Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[Lacius]

Skepticism doesn't accept what is being said just because it's being said. I seek truth, but also acknowledge that I msy not have access to it in the interim. That does not mean that I should accept something sub-par.

You don't care about truth, and you don't know how to apply skepticism properly. I'd be surprised if you could tell me anything specific about what it means to be a skeptic. You engage in conspiratorial thinking and the acceptance of claims without evidence.

 

[Plasmaster09]

So DNC is the default?

and this too, another strawman
this guy can't get enough of that one fallacious argument

 

[tabzer]

Except that he did, you muppet. I'm starting to think that you're a Poe.

You need to seriously consider the context of the conversation instead of breaking it and trying to start another one based on ad-hominem tactics.

 

[Darth Meteos]

Skepticism doesn't accept what is being said just because it's being said.

"i believe that trump lost the election due to fraud"
"no he didn't, here is evidence here, here and-"
"OmG i'M a SkEpTiC"

 

[Plasmaster09]

Russian meddling in the 2016 election was not "morally gray" or "innocent."


Not only are your Russia conspiracy theories unsubstantiated by evidence, but the Seth Rich conspiracy theories were debunked long ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

Conspiratorial thinking is dangerous, and it causes one to reach all sorts of unfounded conclusions.


No evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election has been provided by anyone. You're as much a fool as you are a political hack.

this guy keeps claiming there's tons of evidence but refuses to provide a single shred of reliable evidence
like once or twice he's put individual links to stuff that turns out to have been either manipulated or just pulled right out of his ass but never a reliable resource
do I really need to remind him about what Lilith said about the burden of proof? seems like it.

 

[tabzer]

If I am arguing with strawmen, then my pov doesn't matter. So why bother responding?

 

[Darth Meteos]

and this too, another strawman
this guy can't get enough of that one fallacious argument

hard not to resort to fallacy when you have no response to things people say to you

 

[Plasmaster09]

You need to seriously consider the context of the conversation instead of breaking it and trying to start another one based on ad-hominem tactics.

Claiming you're a Poe actually isn't an ad hominem attack. It's really an attack on your argument, by claiming the entire thing is satire. Though it's not generally good debate etiquette, it isn't ad-hominem.

 

[tabzer]

"i believe that trump lost the election due to fraud"
"no he didn't, here is evidence here, here and-"
"OmG i'M a SkEpTiC"

You have evidence that he lost and that it wasn't due to fraud?

 

[Darth Meteos]

If I am arguing with strawmen, then my pov doesn't matter. So why bother responding?

this dude just said that because we won't respond to his strawmen, we're the ones acting in bad faith
my fucking sides

 

[Lacius]

If I am arguing with strawmen, then my pov doesn't matter. So why bother responding?

You've accepted various conspiratorial claims ("there was probably election fraud in 2020," "Seth Rich is more to blame in 2016 then Russia," etc.) without evidence. You do not get to claim any sort of moral high ground with regard to logic, discourse, etc.

 

[tabzer]

Claiming you're a Poe actually isn't an ad hominem attack. It's really an attack on your argument, by claiming the entire thing is satire. Though it's not generally good debate etiquette, it isn't ad-hominem.

It's an ad hominem because you are claiming something about my character and ignoring the context of the argument.

 

[Plasmaster09]

If I am arguing with strawmen, then my pov doesn't matter. So why bother responding?

Because we know that if we don't, you'll take that as a sign of argumentative surrender and act like you've "won".
Just like Trump did, when he claimed to have won the election before the votes even finished counting, tried his hardest to forcefully and illegally prevent the counting of legitimate votes and then perpetuate bullshit conspiracies about fraud because of how much of a sore loser he is!

 

[Lacius]

You have evidence that he lost and that it wasn't due to fraud?

We have ample evidence Trump lost the 2020 election fairly, and we have no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

 

[Lacius]

It's an ad hominem because you are claiming something about my character and ignoring the context of the argument.

Ad hominem would be if someone claimed you were wrong because of X, and that did not happen. You should study up on logical fallacies, particularly the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy.

For example, I can say you're wrong and explain why, and I can call you a political hack. As long as I don't say you're wrong because you're a political hack, it's not an ad hominem.

 

[Plasmaster09]

It's an ad hominem because you are claiming something about my character and ignoring the context of the argument.

No, calling you a Poe is literally about your argument. It's poor phrasing, but it's not about your character.
It's just saying that your argument is satirical, which I'm starting to believe it is because no legitimate argument could be THIS awful... I hope.

 

[Darth Meteos]

You have evidence that he lost and that it wasn't due to fraud?

trump has lost 100% of his lawsuits regarding the election due to lack of proof
since you're the guys making the claim, all i can do is debunk your arguments, i can't prove a negative
i can use the fact there was quite a lot of security surrounding the election as backup to my assertion that the election is legitimate, but you're specifically asking me to prove a negative

 

[tabzer]

You've accepted various conspiratorial claims ("there was probably election fraud in 2020," "Seth Rich is more to blame in 2016 then Russia," etc.) without evidence. You do not get to claim any sort of moral high ground with regard to logic, discourse, etc.

"Conspirational claims". Lol. Claims of conspiracy are automatically debunked because there are no such thing as conspiracies?

 

[Plasmaster09]

Ad hominem would be if someone claimed you were wrong because of X, and that did not happen. You should study up on logical fallacies, particularly the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy.

And the DARVO argument- deny (all the evidence of the election's legitimacy), attack (whoever the fuck he pleases at the moment in an attempt to cheat the argument), reverse victim and offender ("My PoV dOeSn'T mAtTeR, yOu'Re FaLlAcIoUs")!

 

[tabzer]

trump has lost 100% of his lawsuits regarding the election due to lack of proof
since you're the guys making the claim, all i can do is debunk your arguments, i can't prove a negative
i can use the fact there was quite a lot of security surrounding the election as backup to my assertion that the election is legitimate, but you're specifically asking me to prove a negative

And, so, the logic goes that Biden has been blocking investigation. See?